Falsifiability may be an essential scientific criterium - but how exactly do scientific criteria relate to an actual person?

What reason do we have to believe that scientific criteria can adequately grasp the human experience and provide us with heuristics for achieving our goals, regardless of what those goals may be?

Stepping aside from the broader discussion for a moment:
Science generally doesn't claim spiritual or philosophical insight but limits itself to what is observable and verifiable in the physical world. It is very good at what it does - science works and that is why it has become one of our main ways of understanding the world.
Problems arise when people try to apply science outside its realm of expertise - trying to derive morality from it, for instance - or when people try to say that science is wrong within its realm of expertise - saying that the world was literally created in seven days, for instance.

Kim

Alex Rosenberg, "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" has an interesting discussion where the author in fact derives morality from our evolutionary history. It's too long to summarize here, but I can recommend reading the book.

Based on this review, this book seems to go beyond the "dictates of science" and requires much interpretation of the facts based on the authors opinion. Certainly, based on evolutionary history, we can glean insight as to what generalized moral characteristics are conducive to a the survival of our society, but that is far from dictating an ethical code of conduct. What does evolutionary history have to say about such heated issues as abortion or gay marriage?

Also, our evolutionary history would only tell us what qualities were conducive to survival over the last few million years. As our future looks to be quite different from that time period, maybe we will need a whole new set of moral characteristics to survive this future environment characterized by rapid advancements in technology, information dissemination, and overpopulation.

binocular wrote:Dhamma teachings is the best psychology. These two can compliment each other.

Maybe we need to reconsider the term "psychology". The way I once heard it, is that modern psychology is well suited to corrected acute mental illness, while dhamma is well suited to enhancing the "normal" mind. I wouldn't be surprised if an excellent teacher would be capable of healing a mind with acute mental illness, but on average, a person with acute mental illness is not going to benefit very much from reading suttas and meditating if they do not get some feedback from a very wise person.

Dhamma is great for learning to deal with the sorrows and struggles of everyday life, and the meditation tools laid out by the Buddha have their place in a therapeutic regime, but modern psychology is more focused on acute illness, and therefore better suited at handling those problems. My main point, is that we have to realize that dhamma is not better or worse than modern psychology, simply that they each have their time and place, and sometimes a synthesis is optimal.

By psychology I mean study and dealing with the mental states (as opposed to the "external" world) and Dhamma goes further than merely dealing with extreme mental states. It is supposed to fix all unpleasant mental states.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Ben wrote:What I see here in this thread, and elsewhere on the forum, is a lack of self-reflexive analysis or discussion about one's own distorted vision.
Too often do we see "I've got it right, this other approach (or your approach) is wrong"

It may be that; but sometimes it is also due to one's particular communication skills that one misinterprets something as an ego-contest when it fact it isn't.

For example, my experience is that people who don't have formal training in college-level philosophy tend to find college-level philosophizing offensive. Also, people who aren't trained to recognize and to use different communication styles (assertive, aggressive, passive, passive aggressive) also tend to take offense at the assertive style.

Alex123 wrote:If you want to believe in geocentric world, Earth being flat disc on 4 elephants who stand on the turtle, etc - you are welcome.

In any case science is the best we have right now dealing with biology, astronomy, physics, etc. Of course current science is imperfect. We don't know everything.
If you want the final truth, there is the Bible. If you want imperfect current knowledge about external world there is science.

Lol.
I don't think you'll get very far with an attitude like that.

Alex123 wrote:What is unfortunate is that despite Buddhism being the best, the best religion - it still have elements of faith in it. And while we can ignore irrelevant teachings such as fish 5,000 km in length and sun rotating around the earth, and demon rahu swallowing the moon- kamma and rebirth are important elements that we can only believe in.

Without some consideration for kamma and rebirth, one's efforts will possibly be limited.

If one believes that this one lifetime is all there is, and given that death could come at any time and cut one's efforts short: in the face of this, how much effort will one really be willing to invest, into anything, not just in spiritual practice?
It takes a good amount of pride and egotism to insist in investing effort despite the belief that this one lifetime is all there is and despite the awareness that death could come at any time and cut one's efforts short. But what when that pride and egotism are gone, for whatever reason?

Buckwheat wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if an excellent teacher would be capable of healing a mind with acute mental illness, but on average, a person with acute mental illness is not going to benefit very much from reading suttas and meditating if they do not get some feedback from a very wise person.

Agreed.

Dhamma is great for learning to deal with the sorrows and struggles of everyday life, and the meditation tools laid out by the Buddha have their place in a therapeutic regime, but modern psychology is more focused on acute illness, and therefore better suited at handling those problems. My main point, is that we have to realize that dhamma is not better or worse than modern psychology, simply that they each have their time and place, and sometimes a synthesis is optimal.

I don't think so at all.

Modern psychology requires a firm belief that this one lifetime is all there is, it requires a firm belief in materialism.
Without those beliefs, I think it is depressing to try to keep with the treatments/approaches that psychologists tend to prescribe.

binocular wrote:Without some consideration for kamma and rebirth, one's efforts will possibly be limited.

And how do we know that there isn't some God (and which one?) who is going to send one to eternal hell for not believing in him? How do we know that more rational teaching than Christianity, and evidence against God, Creation, etc, is not created by God to test our faith in Him and his son Jesus who died for us?

Unfortunately we have to take things on faith.

binocular wrote:If one believes that this one lifetime is all there is, and given that death could come at any time and cut one's efforts short: in the face of this, how much effort will one really be willing to invest, into anything, not just in spiritual practice?

I agree. But how much effort do you want to invest in the "right path" without believing in Jehovah, Allah, or Zeus, for example? Who cares for "maggaphala" if the peace will last only for this short life until one is burning in hell forever? Pascal's wager is totally useless in argument for rebirth or some religion.

How do we know that this world didn't spontaneously appear 5 minutes ago with all our memories of past dozens of years, old and young people, crumbling ancient buildings and new buildings, planets, stars etc?

Life is full of uncertainties... The only certainty is doubt or faith, and it can happen only in the mind and right now.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

binocular wrote:It takes a good amount of pride and egotism to insist in investing effort despite the belief that this one lifetime is all there is and despite the awareness that death could come at any time and cut one's efforts short.

Not taking a step toward going to hell (for disbelieving God and his son Jesus) is preferable than walking toward it.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Alex123 wrote:
Not taking a step toward going to hell (for disbelieving God and his son Jesus) is preferable than walking toward it.

kirk5a wrote:
It's preferable to take some things on faith. The Buddha did not advocate faith in which the results were only knowable after death.

Based on what do you pick one faith over another faith?

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

One in which there can be observable beneficial results here and now, not solely about results after death. The Kalama sutta provides guidance on that question.

Who care about short lasting results (which might not even be achieved) in this short life if afterwards one will eternally burn in hell? Maybe the results (if they even exist) are from the devil (or God) to tempt us away from Christianity.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."